Fujifilm GFX 50R Review

The Fujifilm GFX 50R is a 50 megapixel rangefinder-styled medium format mirrorless camera. It shares most of its components with the existing GFX 50S, including both its sensor and processor, but re-arranges them into a slightly smaller and less expensive package. And though the GFX 50R provides essentially the same image quality as its elder sibling, the handling and controls make for a very different shooting experience.

The Fujifilm GFX 50R is available now with a recommended selling price of $4500.

Alongside the announcement, Fujifilm also added a 40mm-equivalent 'pancake'-style 50mm F3.5 lens to its lineup. This lens hasn't arrived as of this writing, unfortunately, but should pair well with the (comparatively) compact 50R body.

This camera is all about putting a cropped MF within price range of many people. If you want a 44 x 33 MF camera that launches at $4500 this is a possible choice. Obviously it's that cheap because the sensor is old which means cutting edge full frame cameras are close to it. Wait until the 100MP Fujifilm MF using Sony’s 44x33mm IMX461 comes out if you are looking for MF that is more cutting edge. Problem is its going to be $10,000 at launch. Pay to play.

Not comparing it to the Pentax 645Z because the Pentax is too large? That's total BS. It's this camera's most direct competition. Seriously DP review quit crapping on Pentax. How about redoing this review and and taking off the Z7 and putting the Pentax in its place.

I'm a Pentax fan as I own their gear but you guys are being silly here. Yes the 645Z is a completely different camera in terms of everything besides the sensor. So if we already know the sensor is the SAME then what is the comparison? That a 3.5lb 645Z handles differently that a 1.5lb mirrorless GFX 50R? The more interesting comparison is between GFX 50R and current top end full frame cameras that are a bit cheaper and similar weight. Thats the point of the comparison...does it make sense to spend $4500 on a MF body when a full frame camera that is similar weight and cheaper can come extremely close in IQ.

I clicked on the gallery first expecting to be blown away - a sort of super X-T2 maybe - but found instead the most uninspiring set of pics I've ever seen. Not just your choice of shots BTW, they look so drab, where's the colour? The impact!

So no, on the strength of that I'll stick my my little Fuji which is way easier to carry around than a set up based round a MF sensor.

We need expedition to India...Steve Mcurry made his name in India and many more photographers before and after him. We need more Indians and India inclined photographers to make any meaningful photo galleries..

Outside of the form factor the Pentax is highly competitive on the used market if someone is just looking at the IQ for MF. Thats where the 645Z makes sense. Getting a used one for under $3,000 and then there is a lot of cheap glass as well.

Well this sensor is the same as the 2013 one in the 645Z Pentax.The Z7 and Sony A7RIII are equipe with newer sensors giving them a slight boost over the D800 for instance. i think the 44 xx 33 sensor is just a larger version of that 2012 Sony sensor. So no surprise the difference is so small. If the exact same technology was used in both sensors I guess the MF one woul dbe about 2/3 of a stop better??? Just a guess based on the sensorsize...

“a more flexible camera...is likely going to be the more sensible option.”

This has got to be the saddest, most defeatist, most regrettable thing I’ve ever read. Since when is anything to do with our art supposed to be “sensible”?This makes me want to switch to metal sculpture—when forging 2200°F steel into crazy shapes, “sensible” never comes up.

This is the ceramicist's reality. I'd love a 'print 100 teapots' button somewhere in my workflow. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest photography is easy, but it is mucho muy more efficient in terms of production. If I were a sensible artist, I would give up playing with clay and put all efforts into photography. And yet, I can't wood fire a RAW file, no matter what the sensor.

Digital MF, despite being smaller than historic film formats, despite only being slightly better in terms of resolution in comparison to FF, still yields results that can not be achieved with FF, (think DR). To that end this camera is very sensible if you know what you're trying to achieve.

Poppycock, Richmond. The 645Z is the perfect comparison, even more so considering it has the same sensor. Same sensor means at least one constant variable, which is always good when making comparisons. Saying we know how the Pentax stacks up holds no water. How? A comparison wasn't made, ergo no data, ergo we don't know. Why make ANY comparison with that view point?

I'm a Pentax guy, but doesn't DPR often make the point that scoring is relatively only to cameras in the same category? Wasn't DXO's two-year embargoed/back-burnered/misfiled 645Z review also defended on the grounds that there weren't other MF cameras to compare it with? Now, in terms of market realism, I understand where DPR is coming from. I'll bet the people thinking about this Fuji are more likely to consider the Z7 or D850 than the 645Z. But, for sake of IQ comparisons, and the question of what this camera is bringing to the table with the older sensor, I agree the 645Z should be in there.

Pentax has the same sensor, this is the perfect comparison of everything else! Compare it to the Pentax for Image Quality, who has the better lenses? Compare it to the Pentax for Handling, who has the better grip & controls? Compare it to the Pentax for Speed, while both are slow, which is not as slow?Did DPR compare the Pentax & it beat the Fuji & that's why no comparison?

Traditionally any film stock wider than 35mm and smaller than the smallest format defined as “large format” (5x4?) is by definition “medium format”. That of course includes 127 (often 4x4} as well as the ubiquitous 120/220.

I remember when the so-called “full frame” (35mm) format was called “miniature”. The de facto norm at the time was roll film now called “medium format” - but that moniker was only invented later as 35mm format usage became more popular.

Eh, I don't see full-frame as BS at all. "Full Frame" doesn't inherently imply that it's the best or anything. It's merely used to distinguish it from "Cropped Frame" which is what APS-C was, and still is, since 20 years into the digital camera revolution, Canon and Nikon never saw fit to built out a proper line-up of lenses designed for their APS-C cameras, so the results are all cropped.

One can''t help but laugh at this discussion. 44x33 is descriptive, as is 5x7 or 6x7. Well, maybe not, you still have to know 44x33 is in millimeters, 5x7 in inches and 6x7 in centimeters. Full Frame, Medium Format and Large Format are all arbitrary terms. Who cares? Both 5x7 and 11x14 are large format. Why isn't 11x14 considered ELF, (extra large format)? Why aren't LF photographers who shoot 11x14 bemoaning the fact that 5x7 is also considered LF? And let's not even discuss 4x6.

I'm quite OK calling this camera medium format. It serves a useful purpose in telling me the sensor is larger than FF, just as knowing a 501C is MF tells me it shoots a larger negative than 35mm. Stating the 501C produces 6x6cm negatives is even more useful, but that doesn't obviate the nominal value of calling it medium format.

I get that you get dynamic range and lovely image quality at base ISO that smaller sensors can't deliver.

But you also get less depth of field.

By the time you stop down to compensate for that, you're heading into higher ISOs on the larger sensor and start to lose some of its IQ advantages (unless you use a tripod). In many real world situations I suspect a lower ISO image from the (stabilised) Z7 or equivalent other cameras may be the better compromise than a medium ISO MF image.

Not what I was getting at. If you want more DoF, with larger sensors you have to stop down. So if you use hyperfocal distance and want max front to back sharpness (eg for landscape which is a real strength of these sensors) what can be achieved at f8 on m43, f11 with APSC or f16 on 35mm will need f22 on MF.

Which means either shutter speed goes down, or ISO goes up. Either way the risk of reduced IQ is there with more noise and less DR. The same DoF and shutter speed would require ISO200 on m43, 400 on APSC, 800 on FF and 1600 on MF.

Obviously as described by StoptheGAS above, technique can deal with this risk - eg landscape photographers should use tripods to get the best composition and results. In which case you'd likely shoot longer shutter speeds at base ISO, as long as it's not windy enough to blur foliage etc. But if you shoot handheld then I think MF comes with downsides both in terms of size and image quality such that it is unlikely to be the best choice for many.

The case of DoF for landscape and bokeh free images imply that a tripod will be needed for often with a GFX50 as opposed to stabilized 24x36. When using a tripod, image from the GFX will look better. Hand held shooting will work with the GFX50 with fast lenses such as the 110 f2 , it will also deliver better looking images than a z7 of d850 paired with a 85mm lens. The downside of the GFX50 is the autofocus, and price of the system.

@Hautedawg Sony A7r III is close to GFX in terms of IQ, but not a match. Also at higher ISO GFX does better. Not sure what is happening at dpreview but in real life usage, I have to give it to GFX for IQ, and A7r III for fast performance.

DPR needs to learn to weigh cameras in their categories, not against every other camera currently being made. This camera should not be compared with the D500 or the A7III. It is emphatically NOT a video or sports camera. Silver? Honestly?

Cameras ARE scored relative to other cameras within the same category, it's just that the categories they use may not make sense to everyone. The category in this case is called "Professional Interchangeable Lens Camera / DSLR", and includes cameras with several sensor sizes.

if that is in fact the case, and they didn't simply forget their own rule, they are way, way out of line. No medium-format camera review should give any weight at all to video, and the Fuji is faster-focusing than any other medium format camera. Why, then, did DPR give it silver because of these trivial non-deficiencies?

"The GFX 50R's contrast-detect AF is better suited for still subjects than it is moving subjects." Why would anyone buy this thing, niceish camera though it may be? The IQ difference is microscopic between it and the Z7/D850.

Larger sensor allows you to shoot differently using glass. The aesthetics are different when shooting the same focal length compared to smaller sensor. A 50mm on GFX allows you to work closer than on 50mm on full frame since it is wider. Using a wider lens on a full frame isn't the same. These are all obviously small details as the sensor on the GFX isn't a real full size MF one. Cool camera though probably doesn't make sense for most.

Professionals, unlike pixel squeakies, measurebators, and stat-obsessed logic-choppers, are always looking for bodies and lenses that can produce highly croppable images, since it's ridiculous to expect that every photographic subject can be squeezed into a 3:2 frame, or that the photographer will have exactly the right lens mounted for the subject distance every time. That's why a 50-mpx MF camera is not a bad thing for working in product, portraiture, fashion, fine art and landscape pros.

"Talk of better gradation, tonality or 'magic' of medium format are essentially just ways of expressing that larger sensors can capture more light, which then gives every tone in the image a better signal-to-noise ratio (assuming the sensor technology isn't significantly outdated)."

In DPR side by side, I truly don't see big difference with Z7 (or A7r III if they also tested).

I don't think 44x33 produces a justifiable advantage when compared to FF.

But then again, when practical equalizers are introduced (i.e. print as a medium, or displaying photos on monitors without zooming in to 100% pixels), I also don't find that FF is generally justified vs. smaller formats.

Making extreme choices is, however, a way to stand out in a very crowded industry.

I shoot 6x7 medium format mainly because it's fun. But that's a totally different discussion.

similar to the conclusion of this review , ive always felt fuji apsc more sensible than full frame...concerning the difference between 44x33 sensors and 24x 36 sensors:

there is always a difference in iq between nikon ff or sony ff and the gfx50rit out resolves always .... and if the highest level of detail is important to you the fuji provides it and the best of "ff" does not

The difference is so small that hard to justify the hefty price of body and lenses, size/weight and much limited versatility. The difference between FF and APS-C is much bigger that reflected in sensor size and amount of pixels.

Don't forget Fuji is not on top of MF as there is much bigger 0.64x Capital One MF digital back, now with 100mp and soon will use Sony new 150mp 0.64x MF sensor.

in practical use there is very little difference between so called "ff" and apsc when 24mp is compared to 24 mp[ compare in dpr test scene]when considering higher mp of "ff" of some cameras now there is resolution dominance for "enlargements " most practical uses see little to no difference just as the the ff cheerleaders claim over fuji "mf 44x33 sensors "however compare fuji gfx to any "ff on the market and there is higher resolution seen in areas of fine detail as in the etching of the family and easel or the lpm test where fuji hold dominance , resolution wise..its there for anyone to compare that is simply a fact it is only when extreme ISO of 25600 and above are considered that 24x36 sensor enjoy about a 1 stop advantage in controlling noise . also at wide open apertures the "ff" sensor offers thinner dof ....if that is your thing

The difference between FF and APS-C is not just on resolution but on DR, SNR, sharpness, color tonality, perspective and high ISO. For example A7 III DR is about 1.5-stop higher than APS-C. The same 24mp is not the same cross different sensor formats. 24mp on FF is sharper and resolves more details than 24mp on APS-C which in turns resolves more than 24mp 1"-sensor camera. Higher crop factor, more penalty in pixel enlargement/magnification. Check DXO system test you can see FF set is much higher than APS-C in sharpness test. In another side, you can see D850 at ISO 64 and A7r III at ISO 100 (Sony matches by reducing read noise) basically match GFX-50s/r at ISO 100. Now next gen Sony 60mp FF sensor will also move to base ISO 64 plus 16-bit ADC that likely further increase DR that likely even edges out current MF sensor, wait and see.

at to address a rather disturbing trend , the parishoners of the "full frame " religion are becoming as glassy eyed and fundamentalist as any apple parishioners with their mindless devotion to a technology .......... it is like a not violent mob in its zeal .....

What a PS claim "color tonality in lightyears ahead for fuji apsc vs over sony 24x36", if you want that plastic looking and waxy color rendering ;-)

Fuji strategy is failing that they want you believe their aps-c can compete to FF while you need MF for much better IQ. It's a huge mistake that now even Panny jumps to FF bandwagon, too late for Fuji ever have a such plan.

And plus well known Fuji x-trans high ISO cheating that its ISO is 2/3 stop lower than marked so its ISO 6400 should compare to bayer sensors' ISO 4000. Plus base ISO 200 or 160 that sacrificed base ISO DR that critical to landscape to get fake high ISO cleanness. X-trans also known in smearing details in high ISO.

Do Fuji MF lenses have counterpart of Zeiss Loxia lines that beautiful sunstar and color rendering, FE 100-400 GM that can shoot sport, wildlife and action...also landscape? Guess not , not even close in versatility and flexibility.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Actually Fuji lenses are overpriced per APS-C standard that expensive but still underperform compare to FF on equivalency, such as its 56/1.2 is still softer on X-trans compare to FE 85/1.8 on FF bodies at half price, smaller and lighter. Plus I dislike those physical dial wheels on top even changing ISO that slow down the process, plus no IBIS in x-T3 and those MF bodies. Well I know my choices are right with much more lens choices and versatility.

sony cameras have many problems:coatings on the sensor are a problem, so much so that some service centers no longer offer cleaning ,coating formulas have been modified so often, technicians no longer wish to harangued over issues they present.

sony is nickle & diming customer"apps for multi exposure or remote use ?? whathe.. sonys pathetic weather sealing. totally bush league in this defect fuji is better stripy phase defect artifacts , often seen in backlit ....my fuji does lovely backlit files "star eating" still a problem,crippling the cam for astro usefuji is betterpoor pro support ...

on steroid of 20fps, real-time AF-C tracking and eye-AF in FW 5 of A9, to be released in this month, and FW 6 in summer for animal eye-AF, that nothing your little Fuji x-trans or MF (that you never will own anyway) can be even close. That is fact. And then 42mp A7r III with DR, resolution/sharpness, color tonality, SNR much higher than your little Fuji x-trans, another fact as reflected in my photos. Can you show us any beside your lousy mouth?

70% is quite less than the difference between APS-C and FF. And with such a big premium over the FF systems coupled with the useless continuous AF and sub-par video, the GFX system becomes even more niche.

@D7000ShooterUKNobody bought DSLRs for video until Canon marketed the 5D II. If Fuji want their MF system to be appealing they should make it competitive for all purposes. It seems they get it since the GFX100 will feature PDAF and improved video.

“Leica S has very bad AF and not very accurate. The GFX instead is more accurate and delivers sharper results even if used at slower shutter speeds compared to the Leica S. Better noise performance of the GFX. Better handling for GFX. Leica S loses the battle agains the Fujifilm GFX. The GFX is not perfect, but “impressive” and makes fun… and the clear winner against the Leica S“

I’ve seen other reputable photographers & reviewers say the GFX is the fastest focusing digital MF camera as well (irrelevant of mirror or sans mirror). Most recently, from memory, that 3 blind men & an elephant fella Hugh said, after using & reviewing the Leica S, that the gfx has faster AF.

I didn't comment on noise performance, but what Fuji calls ISO 12,800 is really ISO 6,400, so they're about the same in that regard, and the Leica S Typ 007 is about to be replaced by a more high ISO capable S3.

That’s weird, because every GFX review I’ve seen said it has the fastest auto focus of any digital medium format camera to date.

Perhaps I should ignore all the professional photographers and reviewers, and instead believe the guy on the internet who goes into every comment section praising Leica (yet doesn’t actually own a Leica camera or lenses, and has no photos, videos, portfolio or proof to back up anything he says).

I just applied the new lightroom "Enhanced Details" on both RAW files. I also raised shadows on both for the same amount, but otherwise left every other settings untouched. I must stay, sharpness differences are now evident, with the GFX showing higher resolution. Did anyone else try?

The bottom line for me is sony, canon and nikon are stuck with 35mm mirrorless cameras for many years to come. Fuji, rightfully decided on a larger sensor and amazingly designed a camera to house it in a body comparable in size to 35mm systems. Just wait until we see the resulting files from Fuji's 100 MP flagship. And remember that is a large gap between 50MP and 100MP that Fuji will probably want to fill with newer technology.

You could make the point that Fuji is stuck with two formats:- APS-C versus 35mm cameras that have the same capabilities and same body (and equivalent lens) size but noticably higher image and lens quality.- (Cropped) medium format that will always be far behind full frame in terms of features and versatility and offer comparatively little IQ benefits unless you spend three times the money of a top FF camera.

The difference is negligible. I would be equally happy with both of those cameras. We made great pics with Nikon D2Hs back in the day with "only" 4MP. The Nikon will print well on any size. The Fuji is slightly better when pixel peeped but on a poster sized print nobody'll notice, I guarantee you that!

absolutely, and some of the most amazing photos i've ever seen were taken with the D2Hs including nasa's and usaf's work.nowadays, any camera will produce an excellent results, no matter what the sensor size is...regards

I have fond memories of a D200, eleven years ago (discounted because it was a then old model). My first serious digital camera. I knew nothing, shooting Jpegs only. My learning curve started two years later with a D700. Which I probably never should have sold. Prints well up to (and probably over) 60x40 cms, as our living room wall proves.

The differences at raw are far more visible. Buyers of high resolution cameras are more likely to use RAW. I grabbed the second shot, pushed 2 stops and it was a clear win for the Fuji. This basic conversion stuff doesn;t seem to make any sense.

It probably would have been fair if you had edited the raws to bring out differences instead of using almost no effort. People buy these cameras for that very last drop of potential.

This is a comparison that is stacked against the medium format camera. After saying "its all about light" you prejudice the medium format Fuji by using a worse f/stop, and different ISOs. All in the interests of showing (by sleight of hand) that full frame can be as good as medium format. How about a proper comparison at equal f/stops and ISOs?

Wrong if anything the test was stacked against the Nikon.The Z7 was scaled up and corrected for rotation so it was at a disadvantage.A different aperture was used on the Fuji so that depth of field would be equivalent on both.

Karl Taylor has a potential bias as he's paid by Hasselblad (and Broncolor), and it feels he may have made several cherry picked choices that gave advantages to the Hasselblad. (I say this as someone with 3 Hasselblads in the studio)

Why is what? I made multiple statements... He works for Hasselblad, that might bias his opinion. Let's dive into a couple issues I have with his videos:

He made choice that gave disadvantages with the D850 such as shooting both at f/16, which is well into diffraction range with the D850, so the choice is intentionally making the images look soft. Additionally he chose to compare a 28mm prime Hasselblad lens to a zoom lens on the Nikon (and an older design at that, the 17-35mm f/2.8 is known as being older and soft, and using the newer and cheaper 16-35mm f/4VR would have been sharper)He's zooming in to 200% on the Hasselblad so that he can force zooming in to 300% on the Nikon to match size... claiming this is equivalent of printing... maybe... if you mean to be printing 48x36" prints and then comparing them by looking at them under a 3x loupe.

Now let's look at his Camera RAW settings... both photo have "custom" white balance settings, in Adobe Camera RAW "custom" means the user changed the white balance manually. He set the Nikon to a MUCH lower color temperature making the image more blue and dull. He applied no other settings to the Nikon, but we can see that he applied other settings to the Hasselblad (lowered exposure, added saturation, cropped). That's not right especially if you're trying to imply a fair test. It also makes me wonder if there are other settings that he turned on that we cannot see (sharpeness? I am certain the 28mm lens he's got lens corrections on because that lens has a lot of distortion and vignetting without it). Particularly the fact he set the white balance so blue on the Nikon and then pitches how much duller and "tinny" the Nikon is... I know he's not an incompetent photographer who is likely to just make stupid mistakes, so I really start to feel he's not being genuine.

In his Depth of Field example, take a very close look at the images. All the objects are more elongated in the Hasselblad example... this comes from perspective and means the Hasselblad was physically closer to the set up than the Nikon. Perspective does not change because of lenses it only changes because of relative distance... he got closer with the Hasselblad than the Nikon. Getting closer makes DoF shallower... that's giving Hasselblad an advantage.

Finally do note, he is not comparing a 44x33 sensor like in the fuji but a 53.4x40mm sensor, which is substantially larger and much more expensive. It's a $33,000 camera as opposed to the $5,500 Fuji with a much cheaper 44x33 sensor. So you're comparing a camera that cost 10x the $3300 Nikon as opposed to a camera that costs less than 2x the Nikon.

I have Hasselblads in the studio, I have a Nikon for my own use... both are great, but Karl's videos are made for Hasselblad and are made to show the Hasselblad in a better light.

Resolution differences may be more evident as pixel counts climb. In the sub 50MP realm, it’s close enough to call it even. This is probably worth revisiting when we begin evaluating 80-100MP sensors and the newest primes.

The main advantage of medium format is an illusion of depth.With a larger sensor it is easier to achieve a right balance between the edge sharpness and local contrast. The smaller the image area gets, the more resolving power is needed, which demands higher edge sharpness. It makes more difficult to resolve tonal gradations. In 35mm format only Leica and Zeiss have been consistently successful producing lenses that have the best of both worlds. In medium format, almost any lens looks decent.https://www.artphotoacademy.com/medium-format-why-on-earth/https://www.artphotoacademy.com/microcontrast-another-look/

At the same aperture they have the same light gathering capabilities. The medium format camera and lens with the same angle of view will have a shallower DOF due to the use of a longer focal length lens but that is another matter. The GFX does not have superior light gathering capabilities.

At the same aperture a medium frame lens has a larger opening than the FF lens. Even though there is the same amount of light per square unit, the total amount of light is greater. Provided pixels on the MF sensor are larger, there are more square units per pixel, hence more light hitting it. That's the theory. It holds 100% true in an ideal situation of two sensors of a different size, the same technology, and equal resolution. In that case, MF pixels are guaranteed larger.In practice, in the same lighting conditions working with MF equipment requires smaller apertures.

"In practice, in the same lighting conditions working with MF equipment requires smaller apertures."Well, my handheld light meter gives me the same aperture, when I set the ISO and shutter speed, whatever the sensor size of the camera I use. There is no setting on a light meter to tell it I use an MF, FF or M4/3 camera...

Gentleman,I have a very strong dejavu feeling. The whole story here reminds me about the discussion if there is any difference/ advantage among FF, APSC and 4/3 Format systems. As I remember the conclusion was (after endless argumentations) that each size has a strong field where each can reach something spectacular, but if you want to achieve thinner DOF you should go to the bigger sensors. I had for a short time period 3 different size format cameras ( FF , APSC, 4/3) at the same time and it became very clear for me that the smaller the sensor size the overall ( corner to corner ) sharpness easier to achieve. The only question was if I needed that for the giving photo theme or not. Anyhow finally I decided to stay with FF and I sold everything else. So what about MF vs FF. I think the point is the same, if anybody want to work in studio with portrait than MF can offer better solution.

There are always situations in which one or other format performs better (like sport, video or low light) but at the end of the day when you need DOF, that is background separation, the bigger the format the easier to reach the solution. Of course this story can be build more complex with image processions, with lens qualities, light gathering per pixels etc, etc, but the question: is that worth it? And finally, according to my feeling the test scenario was good to equalise the two different system but not good to present how they can shine in their own fields. Recently I turned from Sony a7II to Sony A7R ( backward ?:-) ) I had to slow down taking the pictures because of the strange mechanical shutter and had to change my lens sets because of missing PDAF, but the IQ compensates me. If I had the need/sources for MF I would go for that and I would be sure that I should even more slow me down but the IQ would also compensates me.Enjoy your own system and shoot nice photos!

The lens aperture and subject distance are the primary determinants of DoF (and for noise performance) for a given viewing size and angle of view. Note that sensor size is not in there.

The sensor size starts to come into play when looking at lenses that are actually available for a system. For example, to get the same image from a full-frame 105mm F/1.4, you would need:> 52.5mm F/0.7 on 4/3> 70mm F/0.93 on APS-C> 133mm F/1.8 on MF (44x33mm)

(These lenses all have the same aperture: 75mm. And on their respective systems, they have the same angle of view).

But not all of these lenses exist--or exist without significant lens aberrations. That's when the sensor size (and really, the system) come into play.

@Karroly - what I meant was that you want smaller aperture to get enough DOF to work with. This is not about exposure.@beatboxa - yes, by "aperture" I meant "aperture setting" a.k.a f/stop.@D7000ShooterUK - leave the light meter alone :) here is the working situation: your light meter says f/8, 1/125 at ISO800. you happily set it on your 35mm full-frame camera and take a portrait of three people, all in focus. to get this people in focus on a medium format camera, depending on a frame size, you might need f/11-f/16, which will demand a lower shutter speed, or higher ISO. This is the example of how MF higher light gathering capability does not work in reality.

@Irakly Shanidze but that's where your argument breaks down. With the same aperture, you should get the same results. You may start to see resolution differences at very high resolutions--higher than todays cameras offer.

Their fastest lens is a 110mm F/2, which is equivalent to an 85mm F/1.6 lens. But there are already 85mm F/1.4 and F/1.2 lenses on full frame, for even more "illusion of depth" on full-frame.

The next fastest lenses are F/2.8 primes, for the 35mm & 50mm full-frame equivalents. These would be like F/2.2 primes on full-frame--when again, plenty faster than this exist on full-frame already, in the F/1.2 and F/1.4 range.

And finally, there are some F/4 primes for 18mm, 95mm and 200mm. Full-frame here would be F/3.2--and plenty of full-frame lenses exist that are faster than this, even in the F/2 range.

But still, FF will outperform MF in shallow DoF. FF has F1.2 or even 0.95 (Noctilux), MF fastest lenses come at F2 or so. MF crop factor is about 0.7, so the "fact" that MF has shallower DOF is a yet another myth. Please dpreview, make a test on shallow DOF comparing a noctilux with the fastest Fuji MF prime! I'm eager to see how both formats perform!

@martindpr - it is not a myth. Rather, it's a situation with this new crop of "sub-medium-format" cameras. Try 6x4.5 at f/2 and see what happens.In reality, these 30x45mm sensors are much more convenient to work with than real medium format, as they provide a good balance between the medium format look and relative ease of use.

@beatboxa - I really wonder what algorithm you use to read my words. I have never stated that only one parameter determines the DOF, and I never would, because, as you rightfully stated, it's a nonsense. DOF is a characteristic of a system, not a lens, and it also depends on a distance, not only f-stop and the sensor size. The very same lens at the very same f-stop will render different DOF on sensors of different sizes. Let's just stop there and move on to what my original post was about.What you do not understand is that illusion of depth has nothing to do with either a given f-stop, or a maximum aperture of the lens. A good lens renders 3D at f/8 just as well as when wide open.

You didn't write the words to read. The only parameters you defined were: "Try 6x4.5 at f/2 and see what happens."

So I gave you one DoF for 645 at F/2. Because there are infinite DoFs for 645 at F/2. Because you are missing key info. That's the point.

Even in this last post, you've got many things wrong, and you're just parroting back to me what I just wrote to you. Except, I provided enough information for actual comparisons, such as apertures (f/f-number), distances, and sensors sizes (for enlargement).

Above, I also wrote: "The lens aperture and subject distance are the primary determinants of DoF (and for noise performance) for a given viewing size and angle of view." This is true. You didn't even know the difference between f-number and aperture--I had to explain.

You're the one who is repeatedly claiming that a sensor size & f-number only determines DoF. It doesn't. Just like how you confused f-number with aperture, you're confusing sensor size with enlargement.

@Richard Butler "At the same F-number a larger sensor will experience more light (same light per square mm, more square mm). Considering this perspective tells you much more about the final image than exposure does (the same exposure gives very different performance on different formats, even though the brightness is the same)."

No, not really. It depends whether the two sensor sizes have the same number of pixels. If they do then the pixel pitch on the larger sensor will be greater. If they have the same MP then the photosites on the larger sensor will be bigger thus allowing them to make use of more of the light falling on the sensor resulting in probably better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. I say 'probably' because other factors come into play such as processing, S&R firmware, etc. This is why larger sensor sizes generally give better image quality but it is simplistic and wrong to say that this is because bigger sensors gather more light.

@D7000ShooterUK:That's wrong, and a myth. What is MUCH more important is the total area, because all photosites are highly efficient today, in part due to a microlens array over the pixel. That's the whole point of it.

It is absolutely correct to say that larger sensors perform better because bigger sensors gather more total light. In fact, you can even correlate & quantify this to sensor size because it is so predictable.

Richard Butler,By writing "In practice, in the same lighting conditions working with MF equipment requires smaller apertures." without any more explanations, I understood that, because the large sensor gathers more light, one have to stop down a little bit more to get the same exposure (image brightness), which is, for sure, absolutely not the case. Thus my reply.But I am perfectly aware that the larger sensor gathers more photons on the whole surface, for the same light flux (= same F stop), and thus produces an image with less noise for the same print size, and that the pixel size does not really matters in this case.

D7000ShooterUK - pixel size makes very little difference in practice, not when compared to the typical 2/3EV or greater gaps between sensor sizes. Scale the images to the same size and pixel size rarely makes a difference (beyond retaining a little more detail for higher pixel counts).

I have yet to see a medium format camera or back, which performs really well at high ISO. Right now decent ISO12600 in full-frame segment is not unheard of, while none of the medium format manufacturers can make this claim. Most likely, this is because larger sensors produce more heat adversely affecting the signal-to-noise ratio. However, the noise looks less critical on a print, because the size of the noise particles relative to the frame size is smaller than on FF, or APS-C, and MFT let alone smartphones and stuff.

@karroly - they use microlenses but also BSI sensorst that move everything not collecting light to the back so you have almost all of the surface for photosites. This is much more important on smaller sensors with smaller photosites (cellphones) but helps with larger sensors as well since you can now put more and better circuits as they do not affect the light gathering (more and faster ADCs, stacked RAM, etc)

Shallower depth of field and better control of it should be the first argument for medium format (IMHO). Probably because digital medium format means just a little bit bigger sensor boring sharpness and noise are the subject....Noise is then reduced to a low-light problem while it pollutes colours in even daylight pictures.Try this out with cloud photography (a good idea anyway) and be surprised like me.....

otto kThanks, I know about BSI sensors... But there are still small gaps at the silicon level between photosites. So, maybe I should rephrase my question : does a gapless microlens array may help improving efficiency of a BSI sensor in a significant manner or not. But maybe, making a gapless microlens array is now a standard technology, so it is used on both BSI or non-BSI sensors ?

It is used on all sensors with notable example being Leica that designs microlenses so that they work better with their legacy lenses (they were designed for film and are not telecentric so do not work spectacularly on new digital sensors, especially wide angle ones).

I don't have hard data, but IIRC they all use microlenses. I remember articles from at least two decades ago so it's fairly old technology. If you care I could dig them up?

Otto k,I am specifically talking about GAPLESS microlens arrays. You do not use the word gapless in your answer, so I am wondering if we are talking about the same thing... Microlens arrays were not gapless at the beginning.

Canon introduced gapless microlenses with the introduction of the Canon EOS 50D (2008)... This was further developed in the EOS 5D Mark II (2008) and EOS 7D (2009) with a reduction in the distance between the sensor and the gapless microlenses... Gapless microlenses can be found on a wide range of other cameras as well, including the Sony Alpha A77-II, A6000, and A7R to name a few.

@Richard Butler, you are wrong! Where there is a "2/3 EV difference", for example, between sensor sizes, it is because of different pixel pitch and other factors. To state that larger sensors (everything else being equal) gather more light is incorrect! Larger sensors do give advantages but they do not gather more light simply because of their large surface area.

F stop means luminance. Luminance is directly proportional to the surface area. Thus, the greater the surface area (sensor size), the greater the light gathering ability (more total light) at given aperture. Pixel size doesn't matter. An F2 lens will expose properly with the same shutter speed on a MF, FF or a crop camera, but the light gathered won't be the same. Try cropping, it's the same logic.

D7000ShooterUK,Let's assume I take the same picture with an FF sensor and a M4/3 sensor of the same technology, at the same F-stop/shutter speed/ISO, and print them at the same size. Print size is all that matters because, in fine, we are used to enjoy the pictures we take on the same output medium. If I consider the same small area on both pictures, this area will correspond, on the M4/3 sensor, to an area on the FF sensor that is 4X bigger (in surface). For the same light flux (I used the same shooting parameters), the area on the FF sensor will have collected 4 times more photons. Because the number of collected photons is the "S" term of the "S/N" ratio, the S/N ratio of this small area on the FF print will be higher than the S/N ratio of the same area on the M4/3 print. And what is true for this small area is true for the whole picture. And this result has nothing to do with pixel size...

D7000ShooterUK,I am sorry, but to be more rigorous, I should have said what happens to the "N" term of the S/N ratio. As I said in my example above, "S" is 4x bigger, but "N", the noise, is random, so the noise coming from the 4x bigger area of the FF sensor is not 4x bigger. And that is why the S/N ratio is increased.One can make a parallel between 1) using a bigger sensor and 2) stacking images taken in low light to reduce noise. When stacking, we multiply the "S" of an image pixel by the number of images while "N", the noise, being different in each image, has a tendency to cancel itself. One can call this "temporal" stacking because the informations added to create the final image were captured at different times.Using a larger area, with a bigger sensor, to create an image pixel is like combining several points from different locations having nearly the same "S" values, but very different "N" values which cancel themselves. One can call this "spatial stacking".

D7000ShooterUK,It depends where you look at. And this can be the source of the misunderstanding. First, I assume that I take the same picture with the same field of view, same exposure parameters and view it at the same whole size (because we look at picture full screen on the same screen or print them on the same paper), as I assumed above.If one look at, let's say, an area of 1 square millimeter on both sensors, it will be the same "S" (same number of photons). But this comparison does not make sense, because the fraction of the printed image covered by this square on the FF sensor is 4x smaller than on the APS-C sensor.Then, if you look at the screen/printer pixel, this pixel is build from an area of the FF sensor that is 4x bigger than the one from the APS-C sensor. So we can tell that the "S" of the screen/printer pixel is 4x higher (4x more photons) while the "N" is lower because it is somewhat averaged. And this is what matters to our eyes when looking at the picture.

While generally I agree with your sentiment about leica M lenses(specifically), I have owned and rid of many zeiss and R lenses but could not let any of my Ms go. Having said that, there are many good japanese(and other) lenses that equal that of leica in practice.

The below statement in your article about "leica glow" make makes me think you have mastered the art of putting lipstick on the pig

"...The glow is visible on the image above in two areas: more pronounced on a bend of the right hand and less so on the shoulder. The glow makes skin look smoother and creates a dream-like effect..."

Read across comments here, I found many wizards are among us, wizards are real ! As they said repeatedly there is magical power in medium format cameras, I definitely believe medium format camera is referring to magic wand that they use.

Of course it doesn't! Especially when there is no test in a situation where it does matter. Two photos focused on infinity are supposed to tell me what? Resolving power as it pertains to the sensor size? That's lovely, but doesn't tell even 20% of what you need to know :)

@Irakly Shanidze: How should a test be carried out to demonstrate significant differences in your opinion? Do you think there is a dramatic change with shorter focus distances? In which setup do you think there would be (objectivly measurable, visible) differences? I would be honestly interested in that.

I would say, point is, to have comparing images with different scenario. Portrait, landscape, night - times different cameras. Two images in the same category is a bit meager IMHO. And worse, no real difference.

What they did was a comparison of a set of pictures taken at the infinity setting. In order to see the difference between rendering abilities of the lenses, they needed to shoot a multi-plane image, at least a foreground-background. A portrait is an ideal test, as it shows several important things: bokeh neutrality, sharpness at the plane of focus, sharpness fall-off, and tonal gradations.

@Irakly Shanidze: I understand. What I appreciate is that they did a comparison where they cancelled out the obvious size effect. In what discipline would you think the differences are more visible? Do you have any links to other comparisons where one could verify the advantage of the (slightly) bigger sensor?

Irakly - this isn't a lens test. This is a comparison of the technical image quality benefit (or not) of a current 50MP medium format sensor versus a full-frame sensor of near-equivalent resolution. I think that's made clear, but if you want some more context, we also covered this topic in a piece from last year, here:

Barney, I understand your approach, however, in my opinion it is not entirely correct to test just a lens, or just a sensor. The whole imaging systems need to be compared, not just isolated parts, as the final image is always a result of an interaction of all the components of a system.You came to a conclusion that a larger sensor at this point of digital imaging technology evolution does not make sense, and looking at your evidence it seems 100% correct. Yet, when you look at a medium format photo, which was taken with advantages of the medium format taken into consideration, the difference is clearly evident.So, I would at least made it clear in the test description as to what exactly you were testing and for what purpose.I remember the article that you are referring too, and it touches almost all important points. However, there are a few things that I'd rather discuss in private :)

Karroly It's not pixel size that matters but pixel pitch and therefore the size and design of the micro lens array. More total light hits a larger sensor but that is irrelevant as exposure is per unit area. A larger pixel pitch allows the sensor to be designed such that it can make better use of the light falling on the sensor. A 24 MP FF sensor can be designed to give better dynamic range than a 24 MP APS-C sized sensor for these reasons due to the larger pixel pitch (not larger pixels).

D7000ShooterUK,Where did I say that pixel size matter ? I only talked about the advantage of a large sensor versus a small sensor. I even said myself that pixel size does not matter, read more carefully."More total light hits a larger sensor but that is irrelevant as exposure is per unit area."So, you really do not undertand what S/N ratio is. Same exposure by unit area, for different sensor sizes, does not mean the same S/N ratio on the final printed image. And I explained why..." A 24 MP FF sensor can be designed to give better dynamic range than a 24 MP APS-C sized sensor for these reasons due to the larger pixel pitch (not larger pixels)."You are wrong here too. The better DR does not come from the larger pixel pitch but mainly from the larger sensor size. You can make a large sensor and small sensor with the same pixel pitch and the large sensor will still have a better DR and S/N...

@D7000ShooterUKThink about noise as a lack of light. Imagine you had a white wall and a can of blue spray paint. The pressure you use is like the f-number, and the amount of time you spray evenly over an area is like the shutter speed.

When you look under a microscope, a single point is either blue or white. From a little further away, you can see the "noisy" drops. And even further away, it averages to look like light blue.

Viewing a certain pressure from up close is like using a smaller sensor.

And at some point, you completely paint the wall, and the paint starts to drip. This is like clipping. A larger wall can handle more paint before it starts to drip.

This is why larger sensors can handle more light for saturation, and why they exhibit less noise at the same f-number.

Unfortunately they have used the wrong images to compare the different sized sensors. It is not about dynamic range. The larger pixels in the Sony 50Mp sensor produces an image that has a quality that smaller full frame Sony sensors just can't quite match. I might add I am devoted a7R and a7Riii user but I would buy a camera with a Sony medium format sensor in a flash if I was a pro rather than an amateur.

kpiddler, don't even know where to start here. Do you ever have a lucid thought? Might as well compare the Fuji GW690 to 35mm.

These articles and comments always make me laugh. Becassine has it right, actually compare the cameras on their strengths. maybe give a moments thought to why 4x5, 6x7 and 8x10 ever existed in the first place before mentally vomitting all over the place?

@kpaddler - there is no reason for irony. these images are indeed not showing anything that would make lenses look different. nobody is saying that action shots are in order, but a portrait would tell us much more than a night city scape.

Not a Myth, it’s fact.....early days of cropped sensor cameras 12mp....pro’s and advertising companies enlarged pics from these cameras into posters, nobody complained and everyone made money.Is it overkill using a full-frame or medium format camera?Some will say, no....others will say, yes.

I worked in those early days. My agency wanted medium format pictures, and I used to show up on the shoots with a wheeled suitcase full of Contax 645 fitted with a Kodak DCS 645C with a 37x37mm sensor. So, whoever told you this must had been shooting for a newspaper.

No. Full frame, meaning, it's a 35 mm that's bigger than the crop sensors. Medium formats are bigger. But the Sony medum format is actually a crop version, compared to medium format film cameras and a few digital cameras that are full frame medium format.

crop sensor is a meaningless derogatory term suggesting that apsc or m43 are cut down from the glorified standard , which isnt true they are full sized sensors in their own right that happen to be smaller than the sensors that emulate 35mm film dimensions

just as 24 x 36mm sensors are smaller than 33x 44mm or 30x 45mm or canons 200x 200mm sensor

@Consinaphile. While crop sensors are full frame sensors in their own right. The reply is in proper context, due to the reason why the term, " full frame" and aps/crop sensors were started from the get go. So yes, in the context of the question (although I'm guessing the person asking the question was joking), "full frame" is smaller than a medium format.

crop sensor is a relatively new term .... it was not mentioned or applied to cameras before a few yrs ago when the sensor of 24x36 size became affordable or widespread and flame wars of the infallibility of so called ff sensors began

Lets unpack this nonsense. First, it begins with a classic straw man argument of deciding the the "medium-format look" is all about light. Yet, there is nothing to support that definition of a "look" that no one can define in except vague normative concepts.

The "look" could actually just be the increase in micro contrast by lenses work at lower frequencies. The look could be the aspect ratio combined with fairly normal lenses, and shot under more controlled conditions with photographer taking more care. The look could simply be confirmation bias where there is nothing to the look beyond the viewer thinking it exists.

The medium format looks has a lot to do with how larger format cameras handle DOF. For a very obvious demonstration google "large format camera portrait" and find one that is at least from the waist up or further back. You'll notice that the transition between in focus and out of focus is very sudden when compared to 35mm, even though the background has been rendered out of focus to the same degree. This is what the "medium-format look" is about, however it less drastic than an 8x10 camera, and even less so than a 6x6 film camera since the sensor is quite a bit smaller.

It would have been great to see some comparison portraits with the two cameras.

While the leisure class whines about the image quality difference on the pixel level between a $7K and a $4K imaging device...Wait, the $7k camera wins this round cuz you can almost make out more facial features of that homeless person.

@PaulProz isn't his point that the luxury classes is immoral to indulge in expensive gadgets when there are people in need of essentials? If so his sensitivity to the need suggests he would probably take some action to help. I was curious what he had done.

Native ISO is not 64, it's a trick that equates exposing to the right by half a stop, improving noise in shadows but making it more sensitive to blown highlight, the exact same can be done by a user of GFX50 and keep results ahead of the Z7. Any camera can do it if the user knows how it works.

@liopleurodon Exactly, plus you can shoot sports with D850/Z7, get better result than 50r in every day run and gun situation thanks to OIS/IBIS, and Nikon (including new Z mount) lenses are far cheaper than GF lenses.

Not to forget that in the digital medium format world, the GFX 50R sensor isn't as big as the sensors in the Hasselblad or PhaseOne cameras. This Fuji is a crop sensor in the medium format world. The 50R is 43.8 x 32.9mm. Phase is 53.4x40mm and Hassel is at 40.2 x 53.7 mm.

Depends what camera you're talking about. The GFX cameras use the same sensor that's in the Hasselblad X1D, H6D-50c, Phase One IQ250, and Pentax 645Z. The 44x33 sensor is more common than the larger sizes.

Right. I should've put "flagship". And there's also the Leica S3 sensor size at 30x45mm. I had tried the Hasselblad X1D and wasn't impressed. It felt sluggish to use. Good try to by Hassel but it was missing something other than the weight. On paper the Fujifilm GFX 50R looks a lot better at a lower price point.

Yeah, the 'flagship' Hassy and (especially) Phase One are all larger sensors.

I like the X1D in many ways - I love the simplicity of the layout and form factor, I love the lenses, and I especially love Hasselblad's colors straight out of the camera. But, the X1D is definitely slower in operation than the GFX, especially before the firmware update that sped the camera up. If Hasselblad can add a tilt screen, increase the speed of use, add a focal plane shutter to use along with the leaf shutters (like the Leica S system), and a few other features, they'll be pretty good. I think Fuji will always have the edge on cumulative features though (I doubt the X2D will have IBIS, for example) and an edge on price (though the X1D has dropped immensely over time, to where it isn't much more than a GFX now).

You can't apply the crop factor linearly to megapixels. In this case you need to look at the physical dimensions of the sensor and figure how big one pixel is. Then you can extrapolate that size (ie how many of those can you fit horizontally and vertically in a full frame sensor) and you have your resolution. A 42mp FF sensor is roughly equivalent to an 18MP APS-C in terms of pixel density. You can cheat and apply the crop factor to the vertical number and the horizontal number to arrive at the result. For example a 24mp FF sensor at 6000 by 4000 pixels would be (6000 / 1.5) by (4000 / 1.5) which is 4000 by 2666, which is roughly 10.7mp. That math works due to the aspect ratio remaining the same.

Christos Cloud yes, correct. Nearly double. It's important in the sense that larger pixels will have better per-pixel acuity and less noise *at the pixel level*. Downsizing and such mostly negates noise advantages of larger pixels, however.

Biggest effect (for me) is diffraction. The 20MP M4/3 cameras will start hitting diffraction beyond like f/5.6, which can be very limiting, especially with their (rather high) base ISO of 200. Whereas a 12MP Sony a7s can shoot down to f/22 or so without incurring diffraction penalties.

It's also more taxing on lenses, of course, but a lot of M4/3 lenses have pretty incredible resolving power. Some of their lenses (the Oly 45 1.8 and Oly 60 macro for example) are virtually unparalleled in terms of price to performance. In my opinion.

@MattyMustng, @Christos CloudThe taxing on the lenses is correct, but if you're using native lenses, this shouldn't be a problem. (SO many people cannot believe how expensive m43 lenses are because they don't know m43 lenses have mush higher resolving power than FFs') "larger" pixel DOESN'T provide less noise, "larger" pixel provides a higher gain pixel, which means it can give a better signal-to-noise ratio, thus a higher performance sensor. As an Example, A7sii, it has a sensor with large pixel thus it support a very high ISO, ISO 409,600. However, the noise that we are referring to is signal unevenness between pixels, because of randomness of photon. No matter how large the pixel is, it cannot average out signal difference between pixels. A larger sensor can average out signal unevenness more easily, because it has a larger surface area to accept more photon. For example, A7iii has better ISO performance/ higher dynamic range than A7sii but a7iii cannot reach ISO 409,600.

@cksinMaximum ISO ratings on cameras have nothing to do with pixel pitch. They are completely arbitrary numbers for marketing. Yes, the a7s/II has the highest ISO available of Sony cameras, simply because it is marketed as a low-light camera.

The Pentax K1 II has a max ISO up to 819,200 despite having the same sensor as the original K1 (also the same as the Sony a7r and Nikon D800/e). It simply has a new image processor and noise reduction algorithms.

Most modern cameras, though, top out at 25,600 or 51,200, entirely regardless of their sensor size or pixel count. Companies could advertise 2,000,000 max ISO if they want. Doesn't mean anything.

Also, larger pixels *will* be cleaner at the pixel level, precisely because of the higher SNR.

@MattyMustng HI, I believe you're mixing up the concept of larger pixel with dual gain sensor. Pentax K1 II used a higher gain setting on the sensor to get to a higher max ISO, which can be archive alternatively by putting a larger pixel into a sensor. These 2 different approach are both boosting the gain of a sensor, but not necessarily providing an image with less noise.

@MattyMustng "Noise" in an image (which most people are referring to) is not SNR of a pixel. High gain pixel, thus a high SNR pixel, means it can give a usable (where signal is distinguishable from noise) readout with less light, of A pixel. It doesn't mean every pixel receive the same among of light in an exposure, it doesn't mean the image has less noise because all manufacturer have to match the gain setting of a sensor to ISO standard.If you don't believe me, please go to http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm to see for yourself.Although Pentax k1 II has higher, so call, "pixel density", it matches the noise performance of A7III from ISO 100 - 500. At ISO 636, both sensors switches to another gain mode, even A7iii has higher pixel pitch, but K1 II managed to give better noise performance.

"Fujifilm has already announced the development of a 100MP GFX camera with a BSI sensor, which it'll be hard for the smaller format to match"

Well there you go. Size matters. Currently the smaller new generation sensors in FF cameras offer similar performance to a medium format one but the advantage is not set to last as physics dictates.

So the real question is, is what you get from FF enough? Not just now but even when Fuji has its 100MP BSI sensor?

The same question can be posed with APS-C v FF. There are some very good 24mp APS-C sensors such as the ones Nikon use. What is the advantage of a 24mp FF sensor for you? If it's different depth of field or some other characteristic that comes from the sensor size then fine. I think we have got to the stage where those sorts of considerations are more pertinent to most than the pixel peeping performance (even if some won't admit it and just want to acquire the "best" gear :) )

I completely agree! I shoot with FUJI, I love the XT-2 I have. A FF would have it's advantages, but these days it just feels like I am splitting hairs over pictures that will never be printed larger than a 4x6.Others might find the need for every last drop of resolution, but for most of us the cameras have probably just about peaked.

Good point about 24 MP APS-C: I use 24MP APS-C D7200 for portraits at parties with a lightweight 18-140mm lens (27-210mm FF equiv) and FF 36 Mpix and super wides mainly for landscapes. FF has the largest lens selection, and some can be shared with APS-C. My dream lens would be to get the 19mm tilt-shift and no such lenses exist for medium format except ZB that had built in bellows and some capabilities - with a huge body - and then technical camears - but wow the expense of color film for those!!

More about gear in this article

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

This year, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. As 2018 winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2018 DPReview Awards!

Much of the Fujifilm GFX 50R is very familiar, but its smaller size and redesigned controls serve to make the 50R handle very differently from its elder sibling. Here's a detailed look at what's different – and what isn't.

Fujifilm has announced its GFX 50R, a rangefinder-styled version of the company's GFX 50S medium-format camera. The 'guts' of the two cameras are the same, with the difference being the design, weight and Bluetooth, all at a considerably lower price.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.